I doubt it would be allowed by regulators. It would be bad for the entire industry to have the nearly monopoly CPU vendor for the server/desktop space so closely linked with an OS vendor.
Sea turtles are not mammals. Nor does the article say most balloons end up ingested. I do not feel any way about this, I simply do not think the facts back you up.
You cannot right now produce legal USD or Euro. You can produce bitcoins though. Once all the bitcoins are mined then you will be right, but for now there is no scarcity at all.
Yes, but the cost of mining one right now is what exactly? It is likely a 100 times less than what they are selling for. Which means in a rational market if I wanted a bitcoin I would either mine it myself or hire someone to do so. That would depress the price because my need was met at so much a lower price.
That is how rational markets for commodities work.
Short of buying someone with a fab, Apple cannot just buy a fab. They need the knowhow as much as the physical plant. What will happen is they will buy rights to the output of a fab for X years for Y dollars. They could also buy a small Fab firm, but there are not that many of those left. Who short of Intel and Samsung is down to 22nm? And we both know Apple is not buying Intel or Samsung.
Bitcoins in a rational market would cost only as much as they cost to make with perhaps a small premium. Competition for commodities drives the market price down to near cost in a rational market. I wonder if increased competition will do that to this market as more and more way to mine get distributed. I doubt it though, but time will pop the bubble anyway.
This. The article is completely crap. Samsung will sell flash to anyone who will buy it, until they are out of capacity. Sure they will likely give better deals, faster delivery, whatever to their own mobile and computer divisions, but they are in the business of selling these chips. They are not out of spite going to ignore a huge customer.
Perhaps they should stop flavoring them like fish?
What do you base this on? Most of them likely are not eaten by mammals of any sort as they are not likely to be identified as food nor available to the animals since they both not exactly covering every inch of the Earth.
No, I am suggesting if internet access is important to you, you should select a location that can provide that. If it not important to you than the 720 is not likely to be either.
I have a PS3 if they had advertising on the home screen or charged a monthly fee to use an unrelated service, netflix, I would have sold it already.
Not buying the 720 is just like not moving to a place without reliable internet access. Both are voting with your dollars for the values you hold.
He made a valid point. Living in places without good internet access is like choosing to eat at a restaurant with bad food. It sends the message that you find that acceptable in a community. Sure for children it might not be their choice, but this is the message their parents are sending.
What are you doing to these things? I have all my computers in my home using SSDs and so far the failure rates match my spinning disk rates. In the server room I see spinning disks fail far more often.
SSDs that fail from too many writes will still be readable. This morning the helpdesk folks, next office over, are dealing with another dead drive in a laptop, no laptop should come with spinning disks they are simply too shock sensitive.
Slashdot Mirror
I would imagine their choice to use scrypt. Which personally makes it better, but it sure will piss off the ASIC miners.
Or demand finds an equivalent good.
Bitcoins don't seem to have any good unique properties.
I doubt it would be allowed by regulators.
It would be bad for the entire industry to have the nearly monopoly CPU vendor for the server/desktop space so closely linked with an OS vendor.
These are not resources that would be used on SETI if bitcoins did not exist.
What would solve that is SETIcoins.
Sea turtles are not mammals.
Nor does the article say most balloons end up ingested. I do not feel any way about this, I simply do not think the facts back you up.
Semantics. The coins do not exist in the market until the mining is done.
There are far more people who want USD or Euros, nor does anyone do fractional reserve banking with bitcoins.
If this was true we would not have just seen a $100 drop.
The current price of coins is held up by people hoarding them. When they unload the price will drop like it did today.
Hey, people love tulip bulbs. They will never not love tulip bulbs.
No those are currencies, not commodities.
You cannot right now produce legal USD or Euro. You can produce bitcoins though. Once all the bitcoins are mined then you will be right, but for now there is no scarcity at all.
Yes, but the cost of mining one right now is what exactly? It is likely a 100 times less than what they are selling for. Which means in a rational market if I wanted a bitcoin I would either mine it myself or hire someone to do so. That would depress the price because my need was met at so much a lower price.
That is how rational markets for commodities work.
Short of buying someone with a fab, Apple cannot just buy a fab. They need the knowhow as much as the physical plant. What will happen is they will buy rights to the output of a fab for X years for Y dollars. They could also buy a small Fab firm, but there are not that many of those left. Who short of Intel and Samsung is down to 22nm? And we both know Apple is not buying Intel or Samsung.
So they are all mined out?
Then what are the big miners doing with all those ASICs?
You can still mine Bitcoins, so they should not ever cost more than it costs to mine another one.
The bubble is the absurdly high price vs the cost to mine/create one.
Bitcoins in a rational market would cost only as much as they cost to make with perhaps a small premium.
Competition for commodities drives the market price down to near cost in a rational market. I wonder if increased competition will do that to this market as more and more way to mine get distributed. I doubt it though, but time will pop the bubble anyway.
Sure, but they should be free to do that. If you ever thought MS was interested in what customers wanted you were incredibly naive.
This.
The article is completely crap. Samsung will sell flash to anyone who will buy it, until they are out of capacity. Sure they will likely give better deals, faster delivery, whatever to their own mobile and computer divisions, but they are in the business of selling these chips. They are not out of spite going to ignore a huge customer.
Niether. They design flash controllers, but don't have a fab.
Perhaps they should stop flavoring them like fish?
What do you base this on? Most of them likely are not eaten by mammals of any sort as they are not likely to be identified as food nor available to the animals since they both not exactly covering every inch of the Earth.
No, I am suggesting if internet access is important to you, you should select a location that can provide that. If it not important to you than the 720 is not likely to be either.
I have a PS3 if they had advertising on the home screen or charged a monthly fee to use an unrelated service, netflix, I would have sold it already.
Not buying the 720 is just like not moving to a place without reliable internet access. Both are voting with your dollars for the values you hold.
I hope you don't actually have kids. Giving in like that sends the wrong message.
He made a valid point. Living in places without good internet access is like choosing to eat at a restaurant with bad food. It sends the message that you find that acceptable in a community. Sure for children it might not be their choice, but this is the message their parents are sending.
What are you doing to these things?
I have all my computers in my home using SSDs and so far the failure rates match my spinning disk rates. In the server room I see spinning disks fail far more often.
SSDs that fail from too many writes will still be readable. This morning the helpdesk folks, next office over, are dealing with another dead drive in a laptop, no laptop should come with spinning disks they are simply too shock sensitive.
Only if that person is not in the same domain.
Junking all mail from user@domain.com to user@domain.com that did not use auth is not uncommon.
I am a US citizen and do work in it.
I see a huge problem with giving someone those kinds of benefits for little to no gain for society.
Being unethical even when it is legal is unethical.
I would be fine with you make X, you pay Y if we have some cut off for X. Maybe a simple multiple of the poverty line.
Actually smtp can require Auth, it is normally done on port 587.
Democrats are a center right party.
This seems pretty believable, thanks for the article link.